wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.
Discussion
DJFish said:
I think one of the things that cyclists need to take away from this, especially those who cycle in city centres (& I'm one of them) is that pedestrians can and will step out in front of you and it's down to the cyclist not to hit them.
This is part of the problem IMO. If a pedestrian steps out into the road without looking and when it isn't clear or safe and they cause an accident, nothing happens to them legally. This means pedestrians take less care when crossing the road as they know other vehicles have to avoid them so seems to be the norm in some areas for people to step out onto the road without even looking first, even if there is a crossing 10 meters away, they still don't use them a lot of the time.
TroubledSoul said:
A legal bike would have stopped. His could not. Ergo she died because he was riding an illegal bike. It's really that simple.
From someone who has been cycling a multitude of bikes on and off the last 30 years, it's not quite that simpleIt was a combination of two things that caused her death
Stepping out into the path of oncoming traffic. If she waited for it to be clear and safe first, there would be no risk of illegal vehicles hitting her
Oncoming traffic not being able to stop in time. If he had a front brake it's quite likely he would have stopped in time
If it was raining at the rider was on an older bicycle with cheap caliper brakes and pads fitted then the bicycle is still legal but stopping distances would still be very poor. Poor enough not to be anywhere near the stopping distances the prosecution got when getting people to test braking distances in the dry on modern mountain bikes with disc brakes. I've had a few classic bikes with original brakes that were legal but in the wet you almost had to throw out an anchor to stop they were that bad. (solid blocks of rubber with cloth in the middle pressing against a shiny slidy chrome rim)
Red Devil said:
There is always the option of changing the law. 
In Singapore, jaywalkers can receive a $20 fine on the spot, a fine of up to $1,000, or three months of jail time. The punishment doubles to a fine of up to $2,000 and six months in jail if you’re caught jaywalking twice.
First part sounds good to me. Rest is a little heavy, but good idea.In Singapore, jaywalkers can receive a $20 fine on the spot, a fine of up to $1,000, or three months of jail time. The punishment doubles to a fine of up to $2,000 and six months in jail if you’re caught jaywalking twice.
ralphrj said:
There is no evidence that she stepped into the road without looking.
Would seem even more idiotic to see traffic coming then walk out in front of it IMOJim1556 said:
I give up. He's 100% at fault. Her stepping out without looking had nothing to do with it...
Yurp.Because of course she would still have been killed to death by Charlie Alliston had she remained on the footway and he passed by on the carriageway without making contact.
It was not their position on the road relative to one another which caused her death. No siree.
You just couldn't make it up.
Retroman said:
This is part of the problem IMO. If a pedestrian steps out into the road without looking and when it isn't clear or safe and they cause an accident, nothing happens to them legally.
This means pedestrians take less care when crossing the road as they know other vehicles have to avoid them so seems to be the norm in some areas for people to step out onto the road without even looking first, even if there is a crossing 10 meters away, they still don't use them a lot of the time.
The same can be said about any non-traceable road user, including cyclists.This means pedestrians take less care when crossing the road as they know other vehicles have to avoid them so seems to be the norm in some areas for people to step out onto the road without even looking first, even if there is a crossing 10 meters away, they still don't use them a lot of the time.
I'd say that, respectfully, both parties could have potentially done things to avoid what happened. However, I think, in the end, what it came down to was the fact that he could have done a fair bit more to avoid the end result than she ever could.
His comments that he made afterwards, regardless of him later deleting them and apologising, clearly didn't help. If someone loses their life, fault or no fault, it can't be all about you in that moment, which he clearly failed to demonstrate.
His comments that he made afterwards, regardless of him later deleting them and apologising, clearly didn't help. If someone loses their life, fault or no fault, it can't be all about you in that moment, which he clearly failed to demonstrate.
2wheelsjimmy said:
wsurfa said:
It seems rather fact free and opinion heavy.
According to the article, the 'Offences Against the Person Act' is an obscure Victorian law.
It lists accident and fatality stats with no analysis of blame or incident level.
It mentions no front brakes and links to an article headlined ''Front brake would not have made a difference'', without ever mentioning the actual court findings
The comments also seem to contain an attitude displayed by the cyclist convicted - they are righteous all else are evil.
If you really think that is clear presentation of the facts, I would suggest you have a strange view of the world.
Okay fair.According to the article, the 'Offences Against the Person Act' is an obscure Victorian law.
It lists accident and fatality stats with no analysis of blame or incident level.
It mentions no front brakes and links to an article headlined ''Front brake would not have made a difference'', without ever mentioning the actual court findings
The comments also seem to contain an attitude displayed by the cyclist convicted - they are righteous all else are evil.
If you really think that is clear presentation of the facts, I would suggest you have a strange view of the world.
Is this better?
This is the problem with just posting up a set of numbers with no insight to the basis of those numbers.
> This is the problem with just posting up a set of numbers with no insight to the basis of those numbers.
Indeed. The CTC, which is a cycling organisation, have published a study which indicates that when normalised for the relatively few numbers of cyclists, the risk to pedestrians from cyclists is not much lower than the risk to pedestrians from motor vehicles.
Indeed. The CTC, which is a cycling organisation, have published a study which indicates that when normalised for the relatively few numbers of cyclists, the risk to pedestrians from cyclists is not much lower than the risk to pedestrians from motor vehicles.
creampuff said:
> This is the problem with just posting up a set of numbers with no insight to the basis of those numbers.
Indeed. The CTC, which is a cycling organisation, have published a study which indicates that when normalised for the relatively few numbers of cyclists, the risk to pedestrians from cyclists is not much lower than the risk to pedestrians from motor vehicles.
Surely that's looking at it completely upside-down? As the "victim" you don't care what hits you, just that you are hit. And you care more about the things that are more likely to hit you. You only care about what % of pedestrians get hit, not how many pedestrians get hit by what % of each vehicle normalised for the numbers of those vehicles on the road.Indeed. The CTC, which is a cycling organisation, have published a study which indicates that when normalised for the relatively few numbers of cyclists, the risk to pedestrians from cyclists is not much lower than the risk to pedestrians from motor vehicles.
Do you have a link to this study?
Retroman said:
This is part of the problem IMO. If a pedestrian steps out into the road without looking and when it isn't clear or safe and they cause an accident, nothing happens to them legally.
This means pedestrians take less care when crossing the road as they know other vehicles have to avoid them so seems to be the norm in some areas for people to step out onto the road without even looking first, even if there is a crossing 10 meters away, they still don't use them a lot of the time.
It's a ridiculous situation as there's simply no way to hold them to account for their actions. They need to be made to have insurance and they should also be paying road tax as they're using the road that WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR!!!!! Pedestrians need to be regulated like proper road users are. This should include a way of making them easily identifiable such as tabards with ID plates on the front and rear. As it stands if they cause an accident and hit the front of your car and they get off scott free whereas we as motorists have to foot the bill for the (possibly) written off car and they walk off on their merry way. There also needs to be compulsory testing for pedestrians before they're allowed to walk anywhere unaccompanied. I'm going to start an e-petition to introduce licencing for pedestrians and I hope everyone will sign it as the present situation is madness. Also they should all be made to wear helmets.This means pedestrians take less care when crossing the road as they know other vehicles have to avoid them so seems to be the norm in some areas for people to step out onto the road without even looking first, even if there is a crossing 10 meters away, they still don't use them a lot of the time.
Edited by Garybee on Friday 22 September 13:24
Garybee said:
It's a ridiculous situation as there's simply no way to hold them to account for their actions. They need to be made to have insurance and they should also be paying road tax as they're using the road that WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR!!!!! Pedestrians need to be regulated like proper road users are. This should include a way of making them easily identifiable such as tabards with ID plates on the front and rear. As it stands if they cause an accident and hit the front of your car and they get off scott free whereas we as motorists have to foot the bill for the (possibly) written off car and they walk off on their merry way. There also needs to be compulsory testing for pedestrians before they're allowed to walk anywhere unaccompanied. I'm going to start an e-petition to introduce licencing for pedestrians and I hope everyone will sign it as the present situation is madness. Also they should all be made to wear helmets.
Garybee said:
Retroman said:
This is part of the problem IMO. If a pedestrian steps out into the road without looking and when it isn't clear or safe and they cause an accident, nothing happens to them legally.
This means pedestrians take less care when crossing the road as they know other vehicles have to avoid them so seems to be the norm in some areas for people to step out onto the road without even looking first, even if there is a crossing 10 meters away, they still don't use them a lot of the time.
It's a ridiculous situation as there's simply no way to hold them to account for their actions. They need to be made to have insurance and they should also be paying road tax as they're using the road that WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR!!!!! Pedestrians need to be regulated like proper road users are. This should include a way of making them easily identifiable such as tabards with ID plates on the front and rear. As it stands if they cause an accident and hit the front of your car and they get off scott free whereas we as motorists have to foot the bill for the (possibly) written off car and they walk off on their merry way. There also needs to be compulsory testing for pedestrians before they're allowed to walk anywhere unaccompanied. I'm going to start an e-petition to introduce licencing for pedestrians and I hope everyone will sign it as the present situation is madness. Also they should all be made to wear helmets.This means pedestrians take less care when crossing the road as they know other vehicles have to avoid them so seems to be the norm in some areas for people to step out onto the road without even looking first, even if there is a crossing 10 meters away, they still don't use them a lot of the time.
Edited by Garybee on Friday 22 September 13:24
From simple observation, pedestrian behaviour seems to be getting worse- more distractions, less attention to the actual job in hand (ie walking along and observing surrounding risks). Surely it is reasonable to suggest that better pedestrian behaviour would save lives? It is not the same as blaming anyone.
Retroman said:
[
It is not binary. There are other options. As the judge said in the sentencing remarks, it was not clear whether she looked but did not see the cyclist or she saw him and misjudged his speed. She made a mistake but that mistake was not so severe that she had to die.ralphrj said:
There is no evidence that she stepped into the road without looking.
Would seem even more idiotic to see traffic coming then walk out in front of it IMOThe cyclist had time and space to avoid a collision but admitted in his own testimony that when he saw her, other than twice shouting at her to "get out of the f
king way", he did not attempt to slow down. Instead he said in evidence that he "was entitled to go on" i.e that he was not concerned about the threat to her safety just that he had the right of way.Only at the very last second did the cyclist make an attempt to swerve or brake but without a front brake he was unable to stop (he would have been able to if one had been fitted).
ralphrj said:
The cyclist had time and space to avoid a collision but admitted in his own testimony that when he saw her, other than twice shouting at her to "get out of the fking way", he did not attempt to slow down. Instead he said in evidence that he "was entitled to go on" i.e that he was not concerned about the threat to her safety just that he had the right of way.
Only at the very last second did the cyclist make an attempt to swerve or brake but without a front brake he was unable to stop (he would have been able to if one had been fitted).
This is the part of the case that, I think, genuinely made it important enough to make a point of; not the brakes, stopping distances etc which are relevant from a purely legal perspective but do little to speak of motives/culpability. I am seeing more road users (in the general sense, not just cyclists) not exercising basic collision avoidance AKA defensive driving/riding; quite the opposite, they are starting to get quite aggressive enforcing their "right" to make progress.king way", he did not attempt to slow down. Instead he said in evidence that he "was entitled to go on" i.e that he was not concerned about the threat to her safety just that he had the right of way.Only at the very last second did the cyclist make an attempt to swerve or brake but without a front brake he was unable to stop (he would have been able to if one had been fitted).
This needs to be stamped out across the board.
yellowjack said:
Jim1556 said:
I give up. He's 100% at fault. Her stepping out without looking had nothing to do with it...
Yurp.Because of course she would still have been killed to death by Charlie Alliston had she remained on the footway and he passed by on the carriageway without making contact.
It was not their position on the road relative to one another which caused her death. No siree.
You just couldn't make it up.
The onus of this case is on his bike and his conduct. For some reason they are unable to question the ped....
She contributed to an accident THAT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED HAD THE PERP HAD A ROAD LEGAL BICYCLE.If she stepped out without looking then of course she has a portion of blame to bear, but it doesn't alter the fact that his vehicle was not road worthy. It doesn't alter the fact that he had enough time to shout at her twice before hitting her, or that he lied in court about the phone to try and place more blame on her.
Some people are complaining about the fault all being laid on the cyclist while simultaneously wanting to do exactly the same to the pedestrian!
Devil's advocate time; let's say we call this a 50/50 and that they are both equally to blame. Well we can't punish her for her part. She's dead. I'd suggest that she's paid a high enough price for her part. That leaves the other half of that 50/50 to deal with. On balance an 18 month sentence doesn't seem so bad, does it?
As an aside, those who blame the pedestrian for putting herself in harm's way in the path of a vehicle, do you blame the cyclist when one gets crushed by a left turning truck?
giantdefy said:
Here's a better one.Driver goes onto pavement, kills a child but gets off free
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
TroubledSoul said:
If she stepped out without looking then of course she has a portion of blame to bear, but it doesn't alter the fact that his vehicle was not road worthy. It doesn't alter the fact that he had enough time to shout at her twice before hitting her, or that he lied in court about the phone to try and place more blame on her.
Some people are complaining about the fault all being laid on the cyclist while simultaneously wanting to do exactly the same to the pedestrian!
I think some people are trying to re-balance the vilification of cyclists based on this case. Understandably there has been no criticism of the pedestrian, but that does not mean the accident was 100% his (or her) fault.Some people are complaining about the fault all being laid on the cyclist while simultaneously wanting to do exactly the same to the pedestrian!
It is certainly tragic that she died, but why did she step into the path of a cyclist in the first place? Putting his guilt to one side, either she saw him and stepped out anyway, or she didn't look, or she didn't judge his path and approach correctly. Pedestrians stepping into the road without looking is an increasing problem in my experience - mainly glued to their phones. Short of travelling everywhere at 2mph you cannot mitigate someone just launching off the pavement one foot in front of you. Pedestrians do have a duty of care to other road users; there is no divine right to just blindly step into traffic.
TroubledSoul said:
Devil's advocate time; let's say we call this a 50/50 and that they are both equally to blame. Well we can't punish her for her part. She's dead. I'd suggest that she's paid a high enough price for her part. That leaves the other half of that 50/50 to deal with. On balance an 18 month sentence doesn't seem so bad, does it?
Quite. But there are plenty arguing for more (along with the usual prison rape fantasists). TroubledSoul said:
As an aside, those who blame the pedestrian for putting herself in harm's way in the path of a vehicle, do you blame the cyclist when one gets crushed by a left turning truck?
That will rather depend on the circumstances. But given that it is the truck which is manoeuvring, the impetus is on the driver to ensure that it is safe to do so before proceeding. If that isn't possible, it begs the question as to why vehicles so incapable of being driven safely are allowed on the road.Retroman said:
Finlandia said:
The same can be said about any non-traceable road user, including cyclists.
Even if they could be traced, it wouldn't matter. A pedestrian is not going to be charged for walking out into oncoming traffic, even if they cause an accident.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff